Monday, June 14, 2010

About Those Myths

Gun regulation is as American as Wyatt Earp, the legendary frontier lawman who enforced Dodge City's ban on gun-carrying within town limits. But two years ago in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court decided for the first time that the Second Amendment grants a personal right to keep and bear arms, a decision that cast doubt on the future of gun control regulations in this country. Now, the court is considering a challenge to Chicago's ban on handgun ownership -- a regulation that has been in place for nearly 30 years. Would a repeal of the ban have a major impact on gun violence in Chicago or in other parts of the country? It's a tricky question. And disagreements on the answer come from several persistent myths about guns in America.

In response to the most famous of the bumper-sticker myths, the authors had something interesting to say.

1. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

This anti-gun-control slogan, a perfect fit for bumper stickers, has infected the public imagination with the mistaken belief that it's just criminals, not weapons, that lead to deadly violence. The key question is, really, whether guns make violent events more lethal. While mortality data show that attacks are far more likely to be fatal when a gun is involved, gun-control opponents argue that this difference simply reflects the more serious, deadly intent of offenders who choose to use a gun.

But in a groundbreaking and often-replicated look at the details of criminal attacks in Chicago in the 1960s, University of California at Berkeley law professor Franklin Zimring found that the circumstances of gun and knife assaults are quite similar: They're typically unplanned and with no clear intention to kill. Offenders use whatever weapon is at hand, and having a gun available makes it more likely that the victim will die. This helps explain why, even though the United States has overall rates of violent crime in line with rates in other developed nations, our homicide rate is, relatively speaking, off the charts.

I don't think I'd heard about that study before comparing gun attacks with knife attacks. What I have heard before is the pro-gun argument that removing all the guns would make little difference. I've always considered that an indication of intellectual dishonesty because you don't need a study to tell you that the lethality of the gun would make a major difference.

So, it's good to have a study to back up what everybody who's the least bit reasonable already knows. The problem is the ones who wouldn't admit it before still won't. They'll question the validity of the study or disparage its authors, anything but admit they might have been wrong about something. I can't wait to hear what Kurt the 45superman has to say, for example.

What's your opinion? Do you thing these facile slogans are nothing more than that, facile slogans? Or do you believe in them?

"1. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.This anti-gun-control slogan, a perfect fit for bumper stickers, has infected the public imagination with the mistaken belief that it's just criminals, not weapons, that lead to deadly violence."

What about the hundreds of millions of guns that don't harm everyone every year? Doesn't it take a criminal to commit a crime? I, for one, have been around a lot of guns and I have yet to see one jump up and start murdering people.

I can't wait to hear what Kurt the 45superman has to say, for example.

Well, far be it from me to deny you, then--but first, be sure to see David Codrea's priceless response to the "researchers" resorting to reliance on the "wisdom" of Ozzy Osbourne, of all people, to make their "point" (excerpt):

I guess a mind not addled by years of drug and alcohol abuse would understand the flip side to that question would be why not just send the guns? Which makes me wonder what's addling Cook and Ludwig, to rely on a degenerate to make their case for them . . .

My own response is here (questioning their debunking of the "myth" of easily acquired guns in "gun free" Chicago), with more here, including the observation that Mr. Osbourne will be contributing to human knowledge in a way to which he is perhaps better suited than as a provider of wisdom about gun policy: his genome is to be studied to determine how he has survived all the drugs and alcohol.

That second article of mine, though, is mostly about the fact that Cook and Ludwig seem to contradict not only facts and logic, but even Ludwig himself.

Ooh--almost forgot. A source I used in my article arguing with Cook's and Ludwig's assertion that strict gun laws do make guns hard for criminals to acquire was this article from Buffalo News, which talks about how easy it is. Buffalo is, of course, in New York, where the Brady Campaign describes gun laws in this fashion:

New York has strong gun laws that help combat the illegal gun market, prevent the sale of guns without background checks and reduce risks to children, according to the Brady Campaign.

While Illinois has some common sense gun laws, the state lacks many gun laws that would stop the flow of illegal guns and protect children, according to the Brady Campaign.

Yep--so twisted with irrational hatred is the Brady Campaign, that they describe Illinois as not being tyrannical enough.

But guns are hard for criminals to get in Chicago, and easy in Buffalo? Sure, you could credit Chicago's myriad anti-gun tyrannies at the municipal level, but that would kinda undermine your argument that Chicago-style "gun control" must be inflicted on the entire state (or the entire nation), "lax" gun laws elsewhere make Chicago's "strong" gun laws too easily circumvented.

But that's not the fun part--the Buffalo News article quoted some sniveling moron--this is classic:

“We believe that this gun problem is a bigger conspiracy from those who are bent on the destruction of mankind,” said Arlee Daniels Jr., interim chairman of the Stop the Violence Coalition.

And you accuse us of paranoid, hysterical exaggeration! A fucking "conspiracy from those who are bent on the destruction of mankind"? Is Arlee shitting me? Who would the "conspirators" be--hostile aliens?

Kurt, I have to agree that using that quote by Ozzy is silly at best. But what's even sillier is your taking it so seriously as to actually adress it, you and Codrea, that is.

The thing is, Mr. B302000, that if Osbourne had mumbled some incoherent idiocy in support of my beliefs, the last thing I'd want to do is draw attention to his "support." Having his "logic" on your side should cast suspicion on your cause, and yet Cook and Ludwig bring it up as if it strengthens their case.

By the way, Mr. B302000, aren't you going to defend your ideological ally, Arlee Daniels, Jr., from my cruel attacks on his . . . interesting theory about the "gun problem" being a "conspiracy from those who are bent on the destruction of mankind"?

You're a creative guy--I know you can find a way to continue to say it's the gun rights advocates who indulge in wild paranoia and "grandiose victimism," rather than your friends in the mandated defenselessness lobby, like Arlee. Don't disappoint me.